borderlandsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Weapon Page Captions
Votes Keep them - 3 *Veggienater *NOhara24 *Skeve Keep them blank - 4 *happypal *Raz *Airos *Mr. GJ Infobox Weapon Captions? Keep them Make them blank or remove the feature from the template I'm not going to waste my vote because that horrible bastard Dr. F is just going to do what he wants anyway. Talk This has been a topic of discussion on Dr.F's page for the past few days, and I feel like it's time to bring it to the community for a vote. Essentially, if I'm describing this adaquately, the "caption" sections on a page are just for miscellaneous information. The infobox itself is generic to all wikis. Lately on our little wiki, they have been being filled by random sayings. They don't convey any additional information, if anything, all they do is act like an additional line of flavor text. In my opinion, the wiki should maintain some degree of professionalism, at least on article mainspace. What we do on user and talk pages however, can be a different story altogether. The caption spaces themselves are nothing edit war/vandalism fodder. When the new UCs inevitably come around coupled with the wide array of personalities we have here, I just see them as more of a beacon for unnecessary conflict and a defamation to the infoboxes themselves. Thus, I vote that they should be left blank. 17:58, June 17, 2011 (UTC) Ditto, I'm for removing them, but I'm fine if we keep 1 or 2 (raven). EDIT: Or the (reaper). 18:44, June 17, 2011 (UTC) While I agree that we should not be copying the red text over again in this field, some of the captions are unique and quite funny. Putting a funny saying in the place of the duplicate red text could go right along with the humor of the game itself. Anything on any wiki can become the topic of an edit war/ conflict. I think that this wiki is quite professional and keeps to a high standard of content. I am proud to be part of this wiki and community and see no harm in a little " poetic license " in one small area on the main article pages. However I am more than willing to go with the concensous of the community. -- 21:47, June 17, 2011 (UTC) I'm changing my vote. They're fun as long as they don't get abused, and whoever comes up with the caption makes a good one. Otherwise, it can be changed. No sweat. 01:12, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Its actually quite fun to do the captions and read the others being made. 03:43, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Most of the caption I've seen have been clever and funny to read; as long as this stays the case and the potential for vandalism in this regard is monitored, I am all for keeping captions on the weapon pages. EDIT: realized I was not logged in when I posted initially. 17:19, June 18, 2011 (UTC) I'm for keeping them. Professionalism is one thing however adding a little sense of humor to the wiki will liven up the place. You can not live with total formality alone. Of couse they must be proper and describe the weapons feeling. Such as the Ogre i wrote: "Pulverizing with pride" because when i use a ogre things get pulverized to smithereens wich describes the weapon itself quite well. I... I am the King! 09:50, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Nah...they can be a reference based off of the red text or the gun name itself. :P 13:19, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Damn... seems i've set off a whole big hype of captions changing since my "Updating gear to post knoxx patch" incident. I... I am the King! 19:39, June 18, 2011 (UTC) I am begining to see to problem with these captions. How do we a community decide which are appropriate to the weapon and when is it OK to change them. Some of them have been changed from what was to me, relivent to the weapon, to something else. And no I am not refering to the ones I made that may have been changed. I am refering mainly to the Penetrator and Draco. Anyone else care to weight in on my thoughts. 20:28, June 18, 2011 (UTC) a poll? 20:55, June 18, 2011 (UTC) They're fun, but fun for who? The editors who are writing them? Most probably. But I'm still fairly certain that most readers (me included) will think "wtf is this shit?". Since it would appear everyone has gone off to do what they think is fun before any conclusion has really been taken about what is correct, I'm am off to do the same. I'll be having the time of my life removing captions which I think are stupid, of bad quality, or just plain rewords of the flavour text. My contributed caption will be "no caption": Not an undo, just I think nothing is better than the current caption. Best case scenario, I'll force another editor to work harder to provide a better quality caption. Will I start edit wars? Yes, but we accepted that would happen the very moment we put them in, didn't we? 08:14, June 19, 2011 (UTC) I'm seeing the problem with what we make of these captions that makes Happy delete them. If you wish to add a caption then add a "meaning of" behind it with the usage of < ! --Text-- > (no spaces). Also when a caption has already been made then do not overwrite it with your own. I... I am the King! 10:06, June 19, 2011 (UTC) :I agree with happy on keeping the captions blank... there have been a few pages that i've noticed are being torn between users as to which caption is "better" for the page.. and it's just easier keeping them blank so nobody argues over the silly little thing...(&& since most of the weapon captions are already in place, along with a proposal, i'll just leave this as my $0.02 on the subject and leave things alone to work themselves out..) 21:16, June 19, 2011 (UTC) I should be surprised that people can't just play nice together. Should. If we can't share the ball then it needs to be put back in the box until we learn how. I'm in favor of the captions, but not under the current circumstances, (i.e. when all users are willing to stop edit wars over trivial matters). -- 21:30, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Proposal Since it has become clear (I think), that captions are here to stay, how about we formalize what is/isn't allowed? Here is what I am proposing: #Everything must be explained in html comments what the caption is a reference to. This should avoid reverts over miss-understood captions (sorry Dr F.), and help users when they don't understand. (I still don't get the hammer's "Hammer. Down. Son.") #All captions must at least be a reference to something, prefarably something that is both a reference to the weapon, and an external reference: not just a random comment on the weapon, or a random quote. #You are not alowed to undo an edit when your caption is in place. You must accept that another user thinks his caption is better than yours. Only a third member may restore your caption, if that external member thinks it is better. Unless obvious crap of course. Please provide your thoughts. 10:15, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Nr. 1 and 2 are ok with me. However nr. 3 is off, it makes it so that when somebody writes a cap. with a good thought/ref. behind it, impossible to express it because someone else thinks his cap. has the right to be there and deletes the 1st cap. and replaces it. Then the 1st guy "may not revert it back" so his "thoughts" are not listened to. I... I am the King! 10:44, June 19, 2011 (UTC) ill just ring in here (finally) and state that i agree with the happy plan in full. this is what i have been discussing with fry. i only would like to add that pages will be locked if a revert war occurs. this only to be lifted by a forum supported agreement. try to head off the lockdowns by "taking it outside." it would hardly break my heart to have forums running for each and every damned weapon in the game so have fun with it. if you are overly attached to any particular caption - publish it under your own namespace . 11:01, June 19, 2011 (UTC) This proposal sounds fair. There will be no edit war from me. As for Hammer Down Son, That is trucker lingo, meaning push the gas pedal down to the floor to go fast. -- 12:05, June 19, 2011 (UTC) So now we are "linking" captions? LOL kidding. That proposal sounds fine, however, it should be stated in a borderlands "policy on captions" so new editors can get linked to it easily when they don't follow the rules. 12:22, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Also, any new caption that doesn't follow the rules or leaves the .) ::--> resistance is futile. 07:05, June 20, 2011 (UTC) It's hard to make a caption in reference to everything. Most of the generic guns or even some of the oranges, just don't have anything that can easily be referenced, like the Hammer. I say as long as it doesn't have an overly obvious reference, or something that can be connected, a catchy saying is fine. I do like the third rule though. 19:09, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Well, my vote is that nothing is still an option that should be considered, by everyone. I'm still against the captions, but if they are here to stay, I'll do my part to try to maintain a certain level of quality. I hope you don't take my edits personally, and see them as what they are: A push for better content. Unless somebody wants to pitch in first, I do not mind initiating a policy proposal. 20:07, June 19, 2011 (UTC) :Personally, I think the best option would be to not edit areas that you don't want. Leave the captions to the people who want them and enjoy them, since the captions are there for them not you. They are the people who should decide what captions are funny, relevant and of a "certain level of quality". -- 21:30, June 19, 2011 (UTC) see for lockdown requests. if this is overly problematic then The E'''-vil'' Dr. F will decide or the line will be removed from the infobox. i would much rather we all had some fun w/ this. i have been captioning images in infoboxes since the game came out and i would like to see them stay. 02:55, June 20, 2011 (UTC) No, captions are for everyone, including the nay-sayers. You don't have to be a participant in a project to have a thought on it. Everyone has a say on what "a certain level of quality is". Plus this is a wiki, captions are not reserved for a minority that wants to have fun with them. They are there for the readers, then its your choice to have fun providing them for the reader. I'm a reader and editor, and I damn well have the right to think that some of the captions are bad or irrelevant, and I have a right to let it be known. Unfortunately, the best way to do that is to blank the field. When I do that, 1 of 3 things can happen: #Somebody undoes me. #Nobody reacts, and the field stays blank. #Somebody comes along and tries to think of a more relevant caption. You'll notice that when I do that, 90% of the time, the reaction is n°3. I may be taking the nagger's approach to this, but I am participating, and the results are positive. 06:39, June 20, 2011 (UTC) wait, is this a new policy? I thought we were talking about the other policy? I'm confused. 06:54, June 20, 2011 (UTC) No, that is not the "best way to do that", because '''''you have the option of either "thinking of a more relevant caption" or taking it to the talk page to see if people other than you feel the same way. If your answer is to just start "blanking" things then expect to see me undoing a lot of your edits. I won't stand for it. p.s. Ever stop to think that maybe you are the minority, or do you honestly think that the wiki is best shaped in your image? -- 06:59, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Actually, I have to agree with Mr. Grimmjow Jaegerjaquez aka I...I am the king! No.1 and No.2 are easy rules. However, No. 3 is very problematic in a Wiki. This is said after the fact that happy has recanted and wants to undo all captions? Still confused... Anyway, pressing on with this mosh pit... Clear rules should be stated on captions, even if it means no captions. I personally think that captions can be fun and who really gives a damn if rules are strictly followed? Some of the community wants them and some of the community doesn't. Why don't we just leave them alone and appoint Warblade to check them? Just kidding. It is up to us, like it or not, to keep the faith and prevent vandalism. If we agree with a caption, then do nothing, if we do not, then either delete it or create a new one. Why is this so hard? Leave the space and roll up your sleeves and EDIT. 08:06, June 20, 2011 (UTC) P.S. one of the reasons I am so confused is that happy is threatening to delete all captions. If that is his choice as an editor, then so be it. Airos is probably a little over the top, but is happy really just going to delete all captions forcing 3 options? And how is that positive? Tis all so confusing. 08:22, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Yeah? Every time somebody posts bad content, do you see Dr. F, or Fry, or NOHara, rush in to adapt the edit into a better quality one. They don't. They undo the damn thing and move on. If said editor wants to take the time to think of something better, that is his problem. Not mine. You think I am the minority, but you misunderstand my position: My answer is not "to just start "blanking" things". I'm removing the captions that don't fit proposal #2, which, up until now, the majority has agreed with. 08:27, June 20, 2011 (UTC) EDIT: What? I never said I'd undo all captions. On the contrary, I said I accepted the community wants them, and I acknowledged they were here to stay. Whoever thinks I'll carpet blank them is out of their minds. 08:27, June 20, 2011 (UTC) First of all, if an editor of quality iatbrism ™ does not bring an edit up to standard, then in my concern, they are not an editor in fact. This has been my premise from the start. Secondly, when have you seen an UNDO from fryguy or Dr.F recently? Even NOhara has been keeping the faith on substandard edits. Give me one example of Fry or DR.F undoing an edit without a complete summary or hidden text. I would even extend that to NOhara (as of late). I see what you are saying about the carpet blanking captions. You were only talking about captions that you do not approve of. My bad. The number thing did confuse me... It is easy to confuse number 1,2,3 with number 1,2,3. One is stating rules while the other is stating more the lines of "what you going to do". It is not the stance that you take that would confuse me, it is more the differences in them. Lets set that all aside... Lets work on what is good for the wiki. Do we agree that captions are a focus point on editing? Do we agree that although they might not be "factual" that they can be made into a "personality" of this wiki? If there is no personality, then there will be no discussion on captions. If the community wants some personality, then those that do not want personality should probably just stay away from the one line. Personality is extremely subjective and requires work to keep it in the main article (trivia would be an example). Are we willing to do this work, or not? That is the question before us. 09:01, June 20, 2011 (UTC) I think I've used up my talk share here, and been overly loud. It would only be fair I stay quiet so other can get a word in, as everyone's opinion counts. I'll time out and let things cool down and not edit any captions for a little while. 10:24, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Guise. Hay. Hay guise. HAY YOU GUISE. Cap-shuns are srs bznss. 11:23, June 20, 2011 (UTC) I've changed me opinion bout the caption stuff. I find that we are makn' to much of a fuss bout all of it and i'm just not into unnecessary fighting over nothing. So i'll back away from this whole encounter and leave my name under the "Keep 'm blank" cuz i don't like seen' people fuss bout this kinda stuff. I... I am the King! We are having a discussion. The fuss will happen during a discussion, in the attempt to reach a concensous. I purposely shyed away from the captions after the discussion started to avoid any misundersatandings. Even though I disagreed with some of the changes that took place, I did not revert any of them. Happy saw this fuss coming and I will admit, I did not. What I think we need to do as a community is reach that concensous so no one gets their feelings hurt. I think we all need to take a step back and realize the these captions are not that important and that they can be fun for the whole wiki, provided we respect each other. I think Happy's proposal is fair and deserves consideration. -- 15:48, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Pertaining to proposal #2, I do think the caption could be a comment if that comment has something to do with a trait of that item. The Draco caption was a comment on the fact that the guns name does not spawn on the weapon. It was both clever and humurous. That in my opinion was a worthy caption that was changed. -- 15:57, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :-->My proposal 2 was just to avoid random captions, as I felt a lot of them were just nothing more than cheap 1 liners: "Sting them to death" (no offense), or whatever. I think it is irrelevant now, as the community as a whole is working real hard to come up with real good stuff anyways. There is no reason it must be a reference if the caption is witty and relevant. So yeah, I approve of the Draco caption. 19:45, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Veg, as long as you didn't write the original caption, you can change it back if the old one was more to your liking. Infact, I just did. 16:28, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Yes but, I am trying to stay impartial because I have made several caption myself. I do not wish to be selfish. -- 16:35, June 20, 2011 (UTC) this is in agreement with the happyplan in that a third party rules (with hopeful impartiality) on which caption is better suited (notice i did not say better.) to the page. ive seen many good captions pop up and im seing many get shot down, many of them good, some even MINE. each of these pages has a talk page. i have not seen one instance of caption discussion go to its talk page. talk people, discuss! or i will bombard Fry from Asteroid F with haggis.